‘He Betrayed Us! He Played on our Fears!’ — Al Gore — A Convenient Crisis — But Don’t Look at His Carbon Footprint

Editor’s note: I know the pressure that professors and journalists are under to follow the doctrine of their “profession.” In my case, I don’t care, I’m not attempting to talk the PC talk to impress editors for a $70,000 a year job of pumping out AP-style clap-trap following the progressive agenda of “global warming,” “Republicans bad,” “Democrats good,” and “It takes a village.”

UPDATE FROM DRUDGE: GORE MANSION USES 20 Times the ENERGY OF AN AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASED AFTER RELEASE OF “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

I felt a little sorry for “AlGore” last night. Didn’t you? His weight has ballooned, I think he must be nearly 300 pounds and his wife who used to promote Hollywood sanctions on content, is back on the A list. Hollywood gave his PowerPoint presentation that was jazzed up with glaciers sliding into the ocean and a dead bird here and there an Academy Award. I don’t think great directors Robert Altman or David Lynch have ever won one. Gulfstream jets flying “leaders” coast-to-coast for black tie events and political fund raisers, while the little working people should be taking mass transit to work every day. That’s the Progressive Democrat vision for America.

Didn’t Gore’s comments seem sheepish, trite and stiff? And why isn’t he running for president as the jokes all night suggested? I’m guessing that the Clinton machine told Gore he can’t run for president. That the donation machine will not be turned on for his campaign. Clinton may have said: “It’s Hillary/Obama’s race, you came close, but no cigar…. catch my drift?”

Another professor who says that Al Gore’s movie is a bunch of dumb-downed science. He appeared on the Dennis Prager show last week, and Prager promised that the transcript will be up at Prager’s Townhall.com site.

Remember when the VP AlGore came out and started his Moveon.org days by yelling to a crowd of fanatics that “He Betrayed Us! He Played on Our Fears!”

Well that is exactly what Gore is doing. Pure scare, propaganda. Pure nonsense. It’s targeted to the liberal masses with a hate toward the free market and free choice democracy we have in America.

Did you see AlGore’s book yet? It’s a picture book filled with images from his movie.

“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”
Michael Crichton, Science writer and author ‘State of Fear’.

And yet another reputable scientist is willing to stand up to Gore. Professor Giegengack of Penn State now has seen enough of the political nonsense:

There’s no way to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” without getting worried — at least a little worried.
Not Bob Giegengack. He has described Al Gore’s documentary as “a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008.” And he added, “The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.” This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again.

He has another idea about why climate change happens:

The Earth has been warming for about 20,000 years. We’ve only been collecting data on that trend for about 200 years. “For most of Earth’s history,” he said, “the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has only rarely been cooler.” Those cooler periods have meant things like two miles of ice piled over much of what is now North America. Nothing to be nostalgic for.
The professor hits a button on his computer, and the really long-term view appears — the past 650,000 years. In that time, the Earth’s temperature has gone through regular cycles of rise and fall. The best explanation of those cycles was conceived by a Serbian amateur scientist named Milutin Milankovi´c. Very basically, Milankovi´c said this: The Earth’s orbit around the sun is more or less circular, but when other planets align in certain ways and their gravitational forces tug at the Earth, the orbit stretches into a more elliptical shape. Combined with the tilt of the Earth on its axis as it spins, that greater or lesser distance from the sun, plus the consequent difference in solar radiation that reaches our planet, is responsible for long-term climate change.

Those who question the environmental orthodoxy are treated harshly, where do you think funding comes from? This is why they don’t speak up very often. It only causes trouble, and the activists don’t really care about the science, anyway.

NOW TO THE ROOT OF THE AlGore argument — the idea that rising carbon dioxide levels are causing an increase in temperature.

To determine temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in the distant past, scientists rely on what they call the “proxy record.” There weren’t thermometers. So researchers drill deep down into the Antarctic ice sheet and the ocean floor and pull up core samples, whose varying chemical elements let them gauge both the CO2 levels and the temperatures of the distant past.

The scientist clicks a button, and three charts come together. The peaks and valleys of the Milankovi´c cycles for planetary temperature align well with the ocean-floor estimates, and those match closely the records of carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature indications from ice cores. So, the professor maintains, these core samples from the polar ice and ocean floor help show that the Earth’s temperature and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been in lockstep for tens of thousands of years.

Of course, that was long before anybody was burning fossil fuels. So Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that “natural” climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That’s the crux of his argument with Gore’s view of global warming — he says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way.

Giegengack has a lot of slides is his show too. He points out that within his lifetime, there was a three-decade period of unusually low temperatures that culminated in the popular consciousness with the awful winter of 1976-77. Back then, scientists started sounding the alarm about a new Ice Age.

Of course, it’s long been thought that the world would end either in fire or in ice. These days, the scientists are shouting fire. And in all his years around environmental issues, Giegengack has never heard so much shouting. “I don’t think we’re going to have a rational discussion of this question in the present environment,” he says. “The scientists are mad because they think nobody in Washington is listening to them. So it’s all either apocalyptic disaster or conflict of interest. If you suggest that we’re not going to hell in a handbasket because the rate of global warming is low compared to so many other environmental issues that we’re enduring, then you’re accused of being in the employ of the oil companies and you’re labeled a Republican.”

AlGore’s mission is propaganda. He REFUSES TO DEBATE with those who know what is going on. No, he is in the middle of a political campaign.

He GOES ON OPRAH:

The show turns out to be pretty much a synopsis of An Inconvenient Truth, with Gore clicking through his hyper-produced PowerPoint program and Oprah exclaiming “Wow! Wow!” with dramatic concern.
And no, this is not one of those people who are in the employ of the Republicans:

To dramatize the melting of the floating ice cap at the North Pole, Gore has inserted an animated clip of a polar bear swimming desperately to a tiny ice floe that isn’t strong enough to hold him. Global warming is drowning helpless bears. Oprah thinks it’s the coolest and saddest thing in Gore’s whole movie. Giegebgeck starts shouting:
“We don’t know that. We don’t know that! We don’t know that polar bears haven’t drowned in every interglacial period. Nobody was watching them back then.”

It’s got to be a frustrating experience, seeing a topic you’ve spent some 50 years studying turned into an Oprah episode. “I like her,” Gieg says. “She’d beat Al Gore if she ran for president.”

Then Gore clicks again to dramatic footage of a collapsing polar ice shelf. “That’s irresponsible,” Gieg says. “What he’s doing is no less than the scare tactics used by people like Karl Rove.”

But we must act soon! Before it is too late! We only have 3500 years to figure this thing out:

“Sea level is rising,” Giegengack agrees, switching off the sound. But, he explains, it’s been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago. The rate of rise has been pretty slow — only about 400 feet so far. And recently — meaning in the thousands of years — the rate has slowed even more. The Earth’s global ocean level is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That’s less than the thickness of one nickel. For the catastrophe of flooded cities and millions of refugees that Gore envisions, sea levels would have to rise about 20 feet.
“At the present rate of sea-level rise,” Gieg says, “it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming.”

More:

“See,” Gieg says, “the thing he doesn’t mention is that there are 2.4 billion people in India and China who have launched a campaign that will increase their energy consumption by a factor of 10. No matter what we do. If we somehow cut our CO2 emissions in half, you wouldn’t be able to measure the difference because of the role played by India and China.
“It’s over. If CO2 is the problem, we’ve already lost.”

When Gieg gets to this point in his argument, as he often does when talking about global warming, he gets a little frustrated. “I always get sidetracked because, first of all, the science isn’t good. Second, there are all these other interpretations for what we see. Third, it doesn’t make any difference, and fourth, it’s distracting us from environmental problems that really matter.” Among those, Gieg says, are the millions of people a year who die from smoking and two million people a year who die because they don’t have access to clean water.

But no, the Democrats are going to get everyone wound up about global warming, which we really have about 10-50 years to figure out. In the meantime, those 2 million people will continue to die, year in, year out, while Democrats chase their tails, and make themselves feel moral.

Just when I was gonna take the bait on the warming hysteria you pulled me back out of the FIRE, thank you.

Its funny how the artists have all forgiven Tipper and Al’s PMRC stunt in 80’s, all the marijuana has affected their memories. A bunch of heavy hitting rock bands haver signed on to the global warming rock tour algore is pimping. I guess their gonna teach the youth about environment while singing about sex drugs and rock and roll. They all missed the 60’s so they need some kind of cause to sign on with to make their careers semi meaningful, they all know deep down in their black little hearts that if we lose the war there goes their way of life. You have to give it to Gorleone for getting the very people he made career out of attacking to kiss his ring 20 years after.

Well put, blackiejones. I used to like to call AlGore “E-Gore” but I like Gorleone. He really is a shadowy figure. Do you know about his Armen Hammer connections? I think we have to be very thankful that the US Supreme Court stopped the Democrat party from manipulating the vote recount. We very well could have lost it all to the Progressives by now. Can you imagine the Big Brother Kyoto sanctions in place and what our free economy would be like?

Most of us are still being pulled in. It is a very powerful combination of mass media, progressive socialists and academia. What is very scary is that Republicans think they can ignore huge movements like global warming, and just believe that people are smart enough to see through the propaganda. When the movie stars and rock stars back up the propaganda, that is powerful stuff. You are right, the aging rockers are doing it for “the cause.”

Wow. That’s all I really have to say. Wow. I hear so much anger in your writing – and your spreading it like crazy. I can see your points based on the information you’re hearing and reading – but I think if people think there are more important issues at stake then they should take action to let their voices be heard. Al Gore has been working on this project for decades. This isn’t something he just stumbled into at the last minute to look cool. If you feel passionate about something – let’s see some action. It may take you 20+ years, but if you work hard enough perhaps you can make as big of a difference as Al Gore is in this topic he finds important. And obviously other people are backing him up. It’s not a political issue. It’s an environmental issue. And there will always be people to disagree with anything – but there is an overwhelming majority of scientists who support the global warming theory.

Are you a Global Warming expert? Have you seen the evidence? Or are you just listening to some other guy? Don’t point fingers at the media when you jump on your own media bandwagon and call it right because it’s smaller and more righteous. Have you read equal evidence on both sides to create an objective opinion? Or are you dragging politics into it and making it personal (even commenting on someone’s personal looks and weight, seriously).

You won’t be successful in convincing people by constantly pointint out what the other guy is doing wrong. Just my opinion. And of course, I’m not an expert on this issue. Keep up the good critical thinking, though – it’s very refreshing!! :)

Wasnt Armand Hammer a brazen communist? At least I remember some rumors.

I dont really detect a whole lot of anger in Micks writing, but whats wrong with a little anger?

So let me get this straight its OK to be angry as long as there’s a D next to your name but if your an R then your psychotic to be angry about possible misinformation/lies.

I saw Als movie and it left me with one question which is, WHAT THE HELL DOES HE WANT ME TO DO ABOUT THAT ISSUE I’M NOT ALREADY DOING!? I drive a 4 banger I recycle I link trips and I spit on SUV’s but the government as a whole has let me down when it comes to the environment. According to my school teachers (20-30 years ago) we werent supposed to be using gasoline by this time. Instead we have bigger cars using as much gas as they did then and AlGore rides in a whole bunch of them. His hypocrisy makes me sick, he tries to force censorship on the musicians then he holds hands with them years later because its good for his cause, he makes us feel guilty about fossil fuels igniting a wave of hysteria yet he has his hand involved in big oil back room deals blahhhhhhh its insane.

I looked at his picture book. It is written on about a 5th grade level and I believe that 60 percent are pictures.
I will see the video but I want to finish Skeptical Environmentalist first.

Thanks for your clear thinking comments blackiejones, you really can see through the fog. Angela, what did you think of Al Gore’s rants? He was after all the one who shouted “He Betrayed Us? He Played on our Fears!”

And he is known for taking six showers a day. What kind of disorder is that, doc?

Hey Angela, don’t forget, Algore also invented the internet and modern
communication as we know it. He is really as close to God as we’re going to
get, don’t you think? I dont’ see all that much anger in Mick’s article, just some truth. And at least he used specifics and actually cited particular scientists – from you (and Al) we get generalities ‘everybody knows” ‘an overwhelming majority of scientists” I would ask you the same questions you asked Mick – have you read the other side? Have you studied any of the opposing views? I’ll bet not. That’s the thing about the D’s – they aren’t required to take any of their own advice. We are just supposed to shut up and take it. Sorry, not going to happen.
WC

I think it’s entertaining that it’s assumed certain people are Democrat or Republican based on one opinion on one subject. Huh. I think you all bring up fair points. I suggest the flick, “Who Killed the Electric Car” – which asks some pretty good questions about, ya know – who killed the electric car. Plus, it’s narrated by President Bartlett…errr…Martin Sheen (who was also recented in the Departed). Seriously. Go rent it. You’ll probably be a lot more satisfied by it than with Al’s flick. :)

I’m no Gore sympathizer, but I must speak up when I see misinformation. One thing many of Gore’s critics are not considering here is that, while he has a huge house, he offsets his carbon footprint:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

I saw Hannity pulling the same stunt on Fox News, and when a lady tried to explain carbon offsets to him, he just ignored it as if he didn’t understand it. I really think this is a bunch of nonsense. Let’s debate the science of climate change, not result to petty personal attacks in an attempt to find hypocrisy. I would be more than willing to engage in the former.

The excessive electric usage is easily explained by the large screen TV in every room showing his movie 24/7.

reasic, so it’s OK for the rich to pollute as long as they pay someone to clean up their mess? Of course, if Gore and friends really believed their message, they’d sacrifice their extravagant lifestyles for the cause and spend the money saved on carbon offsets for the poor.

I respectfully disagree, Grit. If Al Gore believes his message of saving the planet, then he’ll save the planet. You can spin it to sound negative any way you want, but he’s paying for reductions in emissions elsewhere to offset his own. I think for you to expect every person who advocates taking action to stop global warming to give up everything in order to do so is severely unreasonable. What GW advocates want is an equitable solution for all. Al Gore could live like a pauper, but it wouldn’t put a dent in the GHG emissions. What we need is for everyone to work together, you included, to come up with a real, workable solution. This entire argument is pointless. It does nothing to disprove anthropogenic global warming, and instead, only demonizes Al, which accomplishes nothing.

Grit, I think you flushed out a progressive lackey for the Democrat party.

Gore is Big Foot when it comes to carbon footprints. The VP Al Gore is royalty and “god like.” Gore is telling other’s how to live, take mass transit, turn down the heat, while the 300 lb. “king” is using 20 times the average home’s energy. Well, that’s because he is king. His “job” is more important than yours or mine.

You’re acting like other irrational political pundits. It’s very disappointing. I’ve already explained that Gore has reduced if not eliminated his carbon footprint through carbon offsets. I know you really want to stick it to him, but at least find a valid argument or complaint first. This banality accomplishes nothing.

When you make a point, it’s important to back it up with some facts – not just personal attacks. Otherwise, you come off sounding like a big jerk who is too ignorant to argue in an intellectual and respectful way. But hey, if you want to come off that way – you are totally free to do so. And of course, the people who agree with you will continue to pet your ego so you may feel like you are the smart and bigger person. And if that’s what you need and that feels real to you – then hey – you are free to welcome that as well. I’m just curious what it would look like if you were calm, collected, respectual, and factual in your argumentative points. Just curious. But like I said, you are free to write as you please.

How are carbon credits a gimmick? They’re a gimmick because you want them to be. Otherwise, Drudge’s story about Al Gore becomes a fabrication and a waste of time.

You have got to be laughing to yourself.

I’m thinking the same thing about you guys, trying desperately to find hypocrisy, when we could be discussing the validity of the science of global warming. This is nothing but a right-wing hit job. It’s fine for entertainment, which may be your purpose, but it doesn’t prove or solve anything.

Carbon credits are a scam. All they do is move pollution around, and make liberals feel good about themselves.

However, that’s not my argument. If the people who are pushing Global Warming down our throats, really cared, they would set the example by taking their own advice. If they refuse to sacrifice for the public good, why should anyone else?

Mick, the comment entry box is all messed up on my screen. My name, email, and website are superimposed over the right hand third. Thus, I am typing blind on this one :)

Carbon credits are a scam. All they do is move pollution around, and make liberals feel good about themselves.

I know that wasn’t your argument, but I’d like to clarify that if you really feel that way about carbon offsets, you surely don’t understand how they work. It’s just giving money to help reduce emissions elsewhere. Then, you can figure out how much emissions you helped to reduce, and compare that to your personal output.

If the people who are pushing Global Warming down our throats, really cared, they would set the example by taking their own advice. If they refuse to sacrifice for the public good, why should anyone else?

He’s taken measures to reduce his emissions through Green Power Switch, and then neutralized his footprint through offsets. He is taking his own advice. I don’t see why you keep on with this. Do you really not understand?

Well, I wasn’t very interested in politics until recently. I think I voted for Perot, Nader, and Kerry. Kerry was my first really informed decision. By then I was well aware of the pre-war intelligence issues and other Bush actions or policies that I did not agree with. So, Kerry was an easy choice. What does that do for you?

I don’t know that I’ve ever said it was fine. The main reason I ever commented on it was because the right-wing noise machine was not telling the whole story, thus giving a false impression that Gore lives in a huge house with no environmental considerations, which was absolutely false. Then, when confronted with additional facts about it, most would not own up to it.

Now, if you want to debate whether Gore’s power usage, Green Power Switch and offsets included, is okay, that’s fine, but it’s another separate issue. I just wanted to make sure that all of the relevant information was in the open.

No, I don’t know about Gore’s investments, but I’m sure you’d love to tell me all about that and any other dirt Drudge will dig up for you. As I’ve said before, I haven’t made my decisions on global warming based on such trivial things. I have looked at the science, and I have been persuaded that human activity causes global warming. If you have a scientific rebuttal to that, I’m all ears. If you have more conjecture, hyperbole, and vitriol, you’re wasting your time.

Your political choices tell me you are with the right party, Progressive Democrats. Thanks for being up front with that. I have to be honest, I agree with a lot of what Perot and even Nadar had to say. But you have to make the best choice of the two parties.

Hate’s a very strong word. My strongest negative feelings are aimed toward neocons. I think neocons are very wrong on foreign policy. I can find things to agree with other reasonable Republicans on. I do have disagreements with people, but I don’t hate anybody, not even you. :P I really try to just respect everyone else’s opinions, while at the same time, testing them and trying to figure out why they think the way they do. I’m very fascinated with that. I honestly try to question myself, too.

I actually think there’s a chance I might vote Republican in ’08, if given the right match up.

I like to think of myself as open-minded and moderate. I have a hard time convincing many conservatives I chat with of that because of my stances on issues like the Iraq War and global warming, though.

Mick – Thanks for contributing to the needed counterpoint on this fake-science global-warming propaganda. Last Friday the UN Secretary General took another opportunity to hype “the climate crisis and global warming”. For those readers who may not know, it appears that the signers of the original IPCC report did not sign the final version which was modified by a small group to paint an “unequivocal” picture of global warming, partly by restricting the data to a small timeframe which could paint the picture they wanted. Further, the media and activists are ignoring the fact that the Western civilized nations have already cut the vast majority of the “greenhouse gas” emissions that existed just 20 years ago. We have no responsibility to spend billions to produce small improvements that won’t amount to a hill of beans, particularly when they lack any substantial scientific data to reasonably legitimize the efforts. The G.W. money could be spent far more wisely, with far greater benefit to the environment. See my article on this at http://autoengineer.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/global-warming-fact-or-fraud/

the Western civilized nations have already cut the vast majority of the “greenhouse gas” emissions that existed just 20 years ago.

Do you have any specifics on this? I know the US, for instance, has increased almost 17% from 1990 to 2005. Since I doubt your claim and you didn’t provide any details, I’ve got some questions:

1. What “western civilized nations” are you referring to?

2. “…cut the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions that existed just 20 years ago” doesn’t make sense. Did they cut the emissions levels so that they are now below that of 20 years ago? Did they reduce the emissions that are existing, or currently in the atmosphere? Please clarify.

3. After you’ve specified these, where are you getting your stats from? Please provide some links.

See, Mick? This is what I do. I didn’t drink any “Kool-Aid”. I just see an unsubstantiated claim, and I compare it to what I already know from research reports. If it doesn’t add up, I need to see proof. Without it, I’ll stick with what I think is more credible and fact-based. However, I’m always open to new information, if it’s provided.

you are such a fool. your hatred for al gore, anything related to bill clinton is so blatantly obvious.

you don’t know a damn thing about global warming. you are not a scientist, but a fire breating hater of al gore.

it’s punkasses like you who will be first ones looking for a handout when it becomes very obvious that global warming s for real, and unless we do something in less than 10 years, our planet will be doomed.

laugh all you want about al gore, but my planet is no laughing matter. if you don’t like it, build yourself a space ship and move some place else.

Carbon credits are a scam. All they do is allow the rich to export their pollution elsewhere, and, in the process, feel good about themselves for their environmental concern. However, in the process, they only break even. Considering that they are preaching the need for reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions, this is hypocrisy. If they truly believed in their rhetoric, they would pay for the offsets, and reduce their own contributions to the Global Warming problem. That they, and particularly the High Priest Al Gore, only pay lip service to the cause, only goes to show that it is a hoax.